Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Osprey]

Flanker, you are blue biased, it's really clear in your attitude. How can one claim to be impartial yet call one aircraft an insulting nickname? Please stop doing that.

[addman]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

I wonder why you guys outright deny rotation of squadrons. That is mentioned even in memoirs of Johnnie Johnson, Geoffrey Wellum etc. that squadrons were pulled back for resting, refitting, training for new planes etc. Pilots were too tired to fight and losses did cut the effectiveness of a squadron. Are you so obsessed with this 100 Octane Crusade that you fail to see the trees from the wood? This same rotation was used throughout the war by Allies and even today rotation is a principle used by armed forces.

What will be next you guys want? Luthier slaps in 100 Octane to all Sissies and Hurricanes. Next you start the crusade that it was not 5min clearance for maximum boost but indefinite time and engines suffered no damage even some exceeded it? With the kiddyplay CEM we have now 100 Octane and 5min limit will be abused to hell and back, like the 25lbs boost Sissyfire Mk.IX in IL-2 1946. CEM is a joke and simplistic at the moment.

You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

And bottom line is that Luthier does not need to put in to CoD this 100 Octane at all. Just changes the FM and voilá..you got it. Small text in GUI to tell which version you fly. And the crowd cheers. But it does not turn your planes into some magic X-Wings I fly offline for different testing purposes BOTH red and blue planes, online mainly blue as I have done so since I started flying online 1997. So do not pull the blue bias on me This is a GAME after all.

That's correct, if you are getting shot down a lot today you will get shot down a lot tomorrow too even if you have rocket fuel in your tanks.

*runs for cover from the incoming bombardment*

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!
You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

No-one is claiming to know EXACTLY what happened, and if you bother to read things properly instead of merely skimming through you will see that. What is important is the weight of evidence which shows that it is more than likely that FC used 100 Octane fuel for all daylight, frontline Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant sorties flown throughout the B of B.

If you knew anything at all about historical research - not just the kind of stuff dreamed up on many internet sites - you would know that finding 100% iron-clad evidence for anything is well nigh impossible, and most genuine historians understand that, and do their research accordingly.

The fact is that those who have very little evidence against the use of 100 octane fuel have spent the best part of this thread disputing, sneering at, and ridiculing every single scrap of evidence presented by people like Glider and lane, who have actually spent hours trawling through thousands of documents, usually at a great deal of expense. They have also spent a great deal of time sneering at, attacking and ridiculing Glider and lane and anyone else they happen to disagree with. So, accuse people of "sitting on a high horse" all you like - if you have been subjected to the same treatment, by these same people, over several websites, for years, you would probably be on a high horse as well.

As for your last little sneer? Have you ever bothered spending hours trawling through archives? Or is this just a little smart-alec throwaway line designed to make you feel good about yourself?

[Al Schlageter]

Note: errors in the 2 OoBs that Eugene posted

July - Turnhouse - 243 squadron - no such accredited BoB squadron
Sept - Kenley - 233 squadron - no such accredited BoB squadron

There was a 253 squadron though.

[Flanker35M]

S!

NZ Typhoon. Do you think I do NOT have access to historical data? For example the people of Finnish Virtual Pilots(part of that too) has access to the war archives here and the amount of stuff to trawl through is immense. And this from an Air Force smaller than RAF, but older So do not preach to me about researching. I also did go through original documents on planes from pilot's notes to mechanic side of things. So please keep the insults to yourself, with all respect. I have resorted to it as well so I am not even claiming to be a saint

Osprey, I want only accurate values in a GAME. Do not call this a "simulator" as it is far from it or has very few really modelled things. Compared to those simulators I see at work in military this is just a console port, if you get the picture I fly blue because it offers more challenge than red. But I fly red too to learn their planes, so no bias here. And testing is fun, no matter which side. When you work with real fighter aircraft the more you see how little we have in this game, or any other title "simulated". Knowledge increases the pain so to say. The day I see a game that has been modelled without blue or red goggles I will be more than happy. But for now we have what we have, pot and kettle fights

[Flanker35M]

S!

S-Foils and all that was funny Banks. Good one! I agree on the benefits of the fuel, but it seems many think it will be the I-Win button when it is not. After all it is the pilot, not the plane. CoD has the chance to be THE game when fixed and still waiting for that. Meanwhile have to settle what we have now I shoot down some and I get shot down..part of the game No hard feelings as this is a hobby in my scarse past time.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by addman

That's correct, if you are getting shot down a lot today you will get shot down a lot tomorrow too even if you have rocket fuel in your tanks.

*runs for cover from the incoming bombardment*

And this guy and his buddies accuse me of hit-n-run troll tatics just to stir up trouble.. Got to love the double standards..

Anyway, adults are trying to have a discussion here.. that has nothing to do with how many times you get shot down in the game.. please take your net elseware

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The fact is that those who have very little evidence against the use of 100 octane fuel have spent the best part of this thread disputing, sneering at, and ridiculing every single scrap of evidence presented by people like Glider and lane, who have actually spent hours trawling through thousands of documents, usually at a great deal of expense.

If the less than a handful (three or so) of 100 octane nay-sayers were consistent with their 'standards' of proof..

I could cut them some slack

But, as it turns out they are not

On that note, If you want to see something real funny.. As in Kurfurst dropping his standards of proof to nil

Ask Kurfurst about flettner tab usage on the 109K-4 ailerons..

A few years back he was on a campaign to have Oleg change the 109K-4 FM to include flettner tabs on the ailerons..

His so called proof for doing so was based on a couple of pictures of mostly drawings not actual planes

And 'that' was enough proof as far as Kurfurst was concerned to change the 109K-4 FM.

Even though there are dozens and dozens of WWII pictures of actual 109K-4s shown without flettner tabs, and even though there is a famous WWII German test pilot report stating all the problems associated with flettner tabs

Mater of fact.. I think this was one of the reason he got banned from wiki

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

Osprey, I want only accurate values in a GAME. Do not call this a "simulator" as it is far from it or has very few really modelled things. Compared to those simulators I see at work in military this is just a console port, if you get the picture I fly blue because it offers more challenge than red. But I fly red too to learn their planes, so no bias here. And testing is fun, no matter which side. When you work with real fighter aircraft the more you see how little we have in this game, or any other title "simulated". Knowledge increases the pain so to say. The day I see a game that has been modelled without blue or red goggles I will be more than happy. But for now we have what we have, pot and kettle fights

I agree, and that's what we are after by this very thread, so how you can deride the work of others without so much as reading and absorbing what they are saying before commenting is a little rude don't you think? I would like as much accuracy as a computer can muster, advantages, disadvantages, the lot.

I find your comment about working with aircraft condescending at best though. It's like you are telling us that you work with real aircraft so you should be listened to, yet also stating the bleedin' obvious that a computer game is not real. You are stating this because?

Finally, I am staggered if you think that blue is more of a challenge than red. It's pretty obvious what major, and thoroughly inaccurate, advantages blue have right now. Please do not complain when things get evened up, because they will, and you are going to find the Spitfire a world of pain for you.

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

S-Foils and all that was funny Banks. Good one! I agree on the benefits of the fuel, but it seems many think it will be the I-Win button when it is not. After all it is the pilot, not the plane. CoD has the chance to be THE game when fixed and still waiting for that. Meanwhile have to settle what we have now I shoot down some and I get shot down..part of the game No hard feelings as this is a hobby in my scarse past time.

I'm confused Flanker, a moment ago you stated that it's a game, doesn't compare etc, and now you say it has a chance to be the best and that fighter tactics play such a big part. I agree with the latter and I would suggest that the former is mostly separated mainly by a few million £'s worth of hydraulics.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, on red are after an 'I-win' solution. I would argue that plenty on blue do though - take Kurfurst here for example, and even yourself who has an active dislike of Spitfires (you frequently call it a Sissyfire - why? Can you not recognise it is one of the most defining aircraft of the World? Do you not love flight?).
Most red fliers I know are historian types, re-enactors, and are not interested in competition at all. I'm one of them, I've flown competition in the USL and been a member of teams winning closed and open pit. I have nothing to prove, I want to enjoy a hobby and learn about this history, and replicate it as accurately as possible. I get really p*ssed off with these types who believe in hype and seek advantage at every turn.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Is this 869 posts about 100 Octane fuel?

I have only one thing to say. More of a question if you will.

If these results were gathered about how fast an aircraft goes, would that data not already include the 100 octane fuel? As it is well known most RAF fighters flew on it is it not already included in the data?